Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled 2009 comment

[edit]

I've moved this material from the main WP:Naming conventions page, where is was taking up too much space (as announced without objection at WT:WikiProject Radio).--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC – WP title decision practice

[edit]

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New disambiguation suffix for multichannel television providers

[edit]

There is no consensus to make any changes after one relist.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whatever the methods the companies use to provide multichannel television services (cable, satellite, analogue terrestrial, DTT, IPTV or OTT), I believe there should be a new disambiguation suffix for such service. How about ([country or area] TV provider)? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 06:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical example: yes (Israel). --Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As no one is commenting on this, I'll put my support for the proposal, maybe this will bring in more editors. --Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - do we have more examples of this? Feels like an edge case, and I'm not sure if there are enough to warrant addition to the guideline. Firstly, the addition of country should only be done to further disambiguate when (TV provider) is still ambiguous. Also, we may need to consider if something like (satellite TV provider) or (cable TV provider) is a more natural way of describing particular services. Last point, is that we may want to consider how this overlaps with WP:NCCORP, which generally results in use of simply (company). -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How I read it is that the country is an extended disambiguation as need (see brackets). Are you suggesting <x> TV provider as an extended disambiguation or instead of TV provider? As if it's instead, isn't that too WP:Precise? As per WP:NCCORP, Hot (Israel) (another example) would work better as "company" as it not is a television provider, but it also sells internet and telephone services. Question is, would company be better here for TV providers only, such as the yes (Israel)?--Gonnym (talk)
      • I do think following NCCORP is the right solution for TV service providers, and so for now I am going to vote oppose on the main proposal, but I don't think its a bad idea to add a reference to NCCORP from here in reference to how to name parent corporations and service providers. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indeed, Hot now does more than cable TV business, offering mobile phones (through the acquisition of existing company) and internet connections (through its subsidiary). But it should be remembered that Hot has its roots in cable TV business. So, for the Israeli cable TV operator, Hot (Israeli TV provider) would be more appropriate.

      Also, there are companies that provide more than one method of delivering multichannel television, like Foxtel in Australia (cable and satellite) and Telefónica's Movistar+ in Spain (IPTV and satellite). So I say keep it simple by using (TV provider), with addition of country and area name when necessary. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 10:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - defunct station disambiguators

[edit]
There is a consensus to use more specific disambiguation than "(defunct)" for defunct broadcast stations. All editors involved broadly agreed that there are usually better, more specific disambiguators that can be used rather than "(defunct)", and that disambiguation should be evaluated on a case by case basis as needed. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should articles about defunct radio and TV stations using the disambiguator (defunct) be changed to more specific disambiguators? Raymie (t • c) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation I am neutral on this proposal. In the process of filing a DYK for an article currently at KXBR (defunct), SounderBruce pointed out to me that the disambiguator (defunct) was not specific enough. While I understood his concern, the DYK nomination was not the right venue for the discussion given its scope. The category Category:Defunct radio stations in the United States contains 103 articles that use the disambiguator (defunct); the television categories have 15 more articles.
More specific disambiguators would likely take one of two forms. In the case of the article above, KXBR (defunct), the geographic label KXBR (Missouri) would be appropriate. However, in some cases, this is not an appropriate disambiguator. For instance, WCGO (defunct) could not be moved to WCGO (Illinois) because the current WCGO is also in Illinois. A time disambiguator may not be the most appropriate either, given that stations often change callsigns quite often. (WCGO is a bad example, having never changed its callsign, but that's unusual in the United States.)
We already have some tangly problems with disambiguators. WLQR (AM) (note in this case the (AM) is not so much a disambiguator as a part of the callsign used so that WLQR can be a disambiguation page) and WLQR (defunct 1450 AM) are a mess not aided by the parking of the callsign for the former on the license associated with the latter. We also have WGTM (AM) and WGTM (defunct) which are both now defunct (the second one folded before the first). Raymie (t • c) 07:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some cases that are less clear-cut:
  • The WLQR case above has an unusual ingredient: the warehousing of callsigns from Toledo on a South Carolina radio station and a callsign swap made before the license was deleted. I'd actually suggest WLQR (defunct 1450 AM) be moved to WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina), as it operated as WHSC for all but the last 6 years of its history.
  • Some articles are more mergeable because they deal with an active frequency's history under a given callsign. (KOOV (defunct), for instance, would be best used merged into KSSM.)
  • In a select few cases, we do need (radio station). For instance, KFC (defunct radio station) absolutely needs to explain what it is.
Raymie (t • c) 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't think there's a clearcut rule that could apply the same way across the board. I've certainly seen stations get moved to "(defunct)" on the grounds that they were no longer operational, when they actually didn't need to be as there was no competing new station to lay claim to the undisambiguated call sign, and I've seen instances where a "defunct" radio station isn't really any such thing, but merely a chapter within the overall continuity of a radio station that's still active. I've cleaned up a number of instances of those things for Canadian stations, though I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about what is or isn't happening on US radio station articles.
    That said, when a genuinely defunct radio station does have to be disambiguated because a new radio station has laid claim to the same call sign, traditionally the disambiguator of choice was "(defunct)" — but I agree that we should probably reconsider that and come up with a new standard. I think using the city of license is probably the best option, though I'm agnostic on the question of whether "city radio station" is necessary or not — it may not always be strictly necessary, but it's definitely necessary in frex the KFC example above ("KFC (Seattle)" would be absolutely a non-starter, because it could still mean fried chicken restaurants). And even then, it would still be possible for a radio station to go defunct, then have its call sign picked back up by a different radio station in the same city which then also went defunct, thus still leaving us with a disambiguation conflict. So it would probably be necessary to have a graduated list of multiple "if X applies, then disambiguate the station this way" options rather than one sinple rule. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a list of potential name outcomes for articles with (defunct) at User:Raymie/Defunct station renames. About 20 percent call for merging with other articles, and another 12 can just have the disambiguator straight removed. I've also PRODded an article as a result of the audit. The more I look at this, the more I support the original idea. Raymie (t • c) 05:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have just closed two Requested Moves on these defunct radio stations as no consensus. This is disappointing as the discussion above seemed to result (weakly) in a consensus to move. So I will make the following suggestions:

  1. Reopen the RfC above to allow more time for editors to comment. Please advertise the RfC in relevant places.
  2. If consensus to move all does not develop, then individual RMs may be opened on articles that are more clear-cut.
  3. If consensus to move all does develop then there would be no need to open more discussion to enact the consensus that has already been reached. Just go ahead and move them, pointing to the consensus discussion. But be prepared to discuss further if any of these moves get reverted, bearing in mind that not all of these articles are clear-cut situations.

Good luck — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but see above. We already had that RfC and it closed with a consensus to move these pages. The fact that people who didn't participate and who are making confused "I just don't understand how naming policy works" arguments (never heard of WP:CONSISTENCY, etc.) are popping up a day late and a dollar short to defy the RfC results doesn't invalidate the RfC consensus. We don't need to have four back-to-back discussions about this when two already clearly concluded to stop using "(defunct)", and the third was just shut down as a WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on disambiguation of TV articles

[edit]

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New disambiguation suffixes (second round)

[edit]

There is no consensus to adopt this proposal.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After months since the previous discussion, I still think there should be a new suffix for the articles about multichannel television services. Look at the article titles with disambiguation suffix at these categories. Can you find the inconsistencies?

I'd name it ([country or area] TV provider); since some companies do provide more than one method to provide multichannel services under the same brand (for example, Foxtel in Australia [cable and satellite], Telefónica's Movistar+ in Spain [IPTV and satellite], StarTimes operations in Africa [DTT and satellite] and Altice Dominicana [cable and satellite]), it would be too much to have (cable TV provider), (satellite TV provider), (IPTV provider), etc..

Additionally, I'd suggest (radio provider) suffix for cable radio and satellite radio providers.

But what about services like Music Choice and Stingray Music that provide non-stop music streams to TV providers? Should they be suffixed with (audio service)?

Also, what about (video service) for

  • OTT video streaming services without linear live channels (like Netflix)
  • Video libraries that does not have streaming platform on its own, but provide a catalogue of VOD titles to TV providers (like Cirkus and Curio)

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Gonnym and ViperSnake151: JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
  • Meh, in most cases I don't think it would be helpful to run around renaming most of these articles. The low response to the original RFC, and low response to the relisting, likely reflect a general disinterest in action here.
    In most cases I think (company) is probably a good first choice to consider, and it avoids any possible issues if the company later changes it's range of services. Using (type of service) generally seems ok. I'd say (country type of service) is probably over specification, unless there are same-title articles with (other-countries same-type-of-service). The one case where I do potentially support a pagemove is articles using (country), and especially where it's not disambiguating the same title for other countries. In particular I noticed Hot (Israel) and Yes (Israel) which appear to be poor disambiguators. I think (company) or (type of service) would be much more informative and helpful when the only thing you see is the title. Alsee (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: You do have a point. However, there are definitely the cases where you simply cannot use the (company) suffix.
  • Hong Kong's IPTV service Now TV isn't operated by a company named "Now TV Co. Ltd." (or the like), but is operated by a subsidiary of PCCW named PCCW Media, whose services also include Moov (music streaming service), Viu (OTT video service) and ViuTV (Free-to-air terrestrial TV broadcaster in Hong Kong).
  • In 2017, UK's Sky plc (now Sky Limited) entered the multichannel TV market in Spain with the tailored version of Now TV OTT service (not to be confused with PCCW's IPTV service). While it is branded Sky, the Spanish service is directly offered by the UK domestic operations (unlike Sky's Italian and German operations which are managed through regional subsidiaries).
Wouldn't it be appropriate to use (service) or (TV service) instead of (company)? What do you think? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 10:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. First, while there is some inconsistency, that doesn't mean it's all broken and needs a one-size-fits-all fix. Second, the proposal doesn't seem to fit the most common usages. We don't have Ford (automotive provider) or the like; naming something "X provider" or "X service" seems generally redundant with just "X". I'm sure there will be cases where something of the sort is needed to completely disambiguate a few articles, but that doesn't need a rule. Third, as technology, companies, and society grow together, this proposal may become actually incorrect, requiring "media" or "public content" or some other newfangled terminology to cover the mergers of Google with Time/Warner and Fox/Disney/Netflix or whatever. I think I'd be more favorable if the proposal was more focused on more specific naming problems. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as above. Not broken, so no "fix" is needed. Such companies or services should be disambiguated as "(company)" it "(service)" when possible. Only when further disambiguation is needed would we get more specific, and that can be left to contextual editorial judgement (with WP:CONCISE firmly in mind).  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 23:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - article titles for television stations in Argentina

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The only editor to reply to this RfC in the more than three weeks it was open suggested the solution I was leaning toward: most articles at Channel X (location) with the exception of the Telefe pages, which will use station brand. If more stations dump channel number brands in the future, they will be moved accordingly. Raymie (t • c) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the appropriate titling scheme for articles on television stations in Argentina outside of Buenos Aires? Raymie (t • c) 05:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

[edit]

Our articles on television stations in regional Argentina have disparate and inconsistent titles.

A fair number are "article — location", such as Channel 6 – Bariloche. A few are more compliant with disambiguation styles on enwiki, such as Channel 7 (Bahía Blanca, Argentina), as the result of moves. There are two stations where a call sign is the title—LT 83 TV and LW 83 TV—and one article at the station's brand name, Telefe Rosario.

In eswiki—where the articles are more current and maintained, and there are quite a few more of them to boot—there is similarly a disparity. Most articles are titled with parenthetical disambiguators, like es:Canal 7 (Bahía Blanca). All of Telefe's owned-and-operated regional stations are at brand name titles (like the aforementioned es:Telefe Rosario), which is not matched by any of the other articles in the field. None have call sign titles.

While I would normally go for a call sign title—at least all the stations have them—it's evident that call signs do not have the WP:COMMONNAME weight in Argentina that they do in the US or Canada. The Buenos Aires titles should remain at network name, as I have advocated for in past RMs.

Worth noting here too is that in the case of Telefe, the change from channel number branding, made in 2018 across its owned stations, also is a provision for the coming digital television transition (slated for 2021). ISDB-T countries like Argentina don't really make use of virtual channels, so historic brands like "Channel 8" will end up having to adapt.

What should article titles use: a call sign, a brand name, channel/disambiguator, or a mix (particularly with regard to the Telefe stations)? I've added a table below to help gauge the options. It's worth noting that some new digital TV licenses seem not to get call signs assigned to them at all, and even a few of the articles eswiki has that we do not lack matching call letters in ENACOM's databases.

Affected articles
Current article title Channel (Location) Call sign Name
Channel 8 (Tucuman, Argentina) Channel 8 (Tucumán, Argentina) LRK 458 TV Telefe Tucumán
Channel 6 – Bariloche Channel 6 (Bariloche, Argentina) LU 93 TV El Seis
Channel 7 (Bahía Blanca, Argentina) Channel 7 (Bahía Blanca, Argentina) LU 81 TV Canal Siete
Channel 7 – Mendoza Channel 7 (Mendoza, Argentina) LV 89 TV El Siete
Channel 7 – Santiago del Estero Channel 7 (Santiago del Estero, Argentina) LW 81 TV Canal 7
Channel 8 San Juan Channel 8 (San Juan, Argentina) LV 82 TV Canal Ocho
Channel 9 – Bahía Blanca Channel 9 (Bahía Blanca, Argentina) LU 80 TV Telefe Bahía Blanca
Channel 9 – La Rioja Channel 9 (La Rioja, Argentina) LV 91 TV Canal 9
Channel 10 – Córdoba Channel 10 (Córdoba, Argentina) LV 80 TV Canal 10
Channel 10 – Junín Channel 10 (Junín, Argentina) LRH 450 TV Canal 10
Channel 10 – Mar del Plata Channel 10 (Mar del Plata, Argentina) LU 82 TV Canal 10
Channel 10 – Río Negro Channel 10 (Río Negro, Argentina) LU 92 TV Canal 10
Channel 12 – Misiones Channel 12 (Misiones, Argentina) LT 85 TV (Canal) Doce Misiones
Channel 13 – Santa Fe Channel 13 (Santa Fe, Argentina) LT 82 TV Telefe Santa Fe
LT 83 TV Channel 3 (Rosario, Argentina) LT 83 TV El Tres
Telefe Rosario Channel 5 (Rosario, Argentina) LT 84 TV Telefe Rosario
LW 83 TV Channel 10 (Tucumán, Argentina) LW 83 TV Canal 10

Discussion

[edit]
  • Change all to Channel X (Location), except for the ones owned by Telefé, which should stay as Telefé Location, as Telefe Rosario is. I'm from Argentina, call signs aren't used as a commons means of identification. Telefe is the common name for all its media, as it has different channel numbers depending on where it's from, and the Telefe channels are the only ones of those whose name isn't a number. El Millo (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facu-el Millo, this is what I'm leaning toward myself after looking at quite a few sources and how these names are written. Telefe definitely made a bold move for Argentina dropping channel number branding. Raymie (t • c) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 revision proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Weak consensus in support of this proposal. Six editors participated in this RFC, which was started almost two months ago. One editor objected to the format of the RFC, arguing that it makes too many proposed changes, but no other participants appeared to share this objection to the format. A second editor objected to the disambiguation section, and did not comment on the remainder of the proposal; nobody appeared to share this objection to the disambiguation section. The remaining four participants supported the proposal (including the proposer, of course). I say "weak" only because of the relatively-low participation. Low participation shouldn't be an obstacle to changing this guideline, but consensus can change, and weak consensus is more likely to change than strong consensus. Editors may wish to make and/or suggest further revisions to the language in accordance with WP:PGCHANGE, but there is consensus to update WP:NCBC (Special:Permalink/1038379940) with the text from User:Sammi Brie/NCBC (Special:Permalink/1082424496), which should be considered the new starting point for any further modifications. Levivich 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]



Should the revised text at User:Sammi Brie/NCBC be adopted as an update to this guideline? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

[edit]

The most succinct explanation of what this rewrite does is also included as a statement of purpose comment in the proposal:

This proposal has been made with these goals in mind:

  • Bring the network/channel/station terminology, which impacts especially categories and disambiguators, to vastly improve consistency and update it to align with today's media realities.
  • Create a single source of truth, especially on the radio stations side where guidelines on the project page cover some different material.
  • Enshrine several large RMs and RfCs of the last three years, particularly pertaining to disambiguation concision and completeness, to bring this guideline in line with the Manual of Style.
  • Use cleaner, more internationalizable text, so as to make the page less reliant on the US and to aid non-topic editors who may not be familiar with the detail-oriented call sign titling environment.

The vast majority of pages won't move, and most of the moves will be of disambiguated pages and categories.

The first bullet point is something that has aggravated me. We have inconsistency in definitions used in disambiguation, exacerbated by a really fast-moving media landscape. This is a bit more acute with the United States because of metonymy issues around "channel" versus "network"; see TNT (American TV network) and TBS (American TV channel), articles on topics that common sense would dictate should have the same disambiguation terms. The network-channel-station table was previously submitted for comment to WikiProject Radio Stations and the Television stations task force, and the revised text as a whole also received one change suggestion in the process (an update for Canada).

As one of the most active editors in the topic area, I've noticed in the last few years that several MOS guidelines do not neatly match up with recommendations in the naming conventions, especially around disambiguators. This rewrite fixes that (bringing NCBC in line with MOS) and incorporates several pieces of precedent that have accumulated since 2019. It also aims to increase clarity for non-topic readers, which is particularly important as we have some of the most detail-oriented naming areas on the whole encyclopedia, and bring in more non-US/Canada examples. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No to adoption in toto. There are simply too many proposed changes to fairly consider an entire rewrite and fundamental paradigm shift to the guideline, and I'm surprised you'd suggest it. This is not a format suitable for an RfC in its present form. I would encourage withdrawal and instead propose section-by-section, changes so we can discuss and evaluate in a more systematic manner. At this time I'm not going to address specific items I agree or disagree with. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Times have changed, and with the addition of articles pertaining to TV stations, channels and networks throughout the world under the scope of TVS, it is no longer North American-centric. It never should have been North American-centric in the first place. Let's get this all straightened out now. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this modernises the guideline, which is meant to describe common practice, not prescribe it. Many points, such as the "(streaming service)" disambiguator section, are obvious and uncontroversial. I agree with all those that are not, such as abolishing this strange U.S.-centric "network"/"channel" distinction, and reinforcing that WP:NATURALDAB is expected in this topic area. Sammi Brie is extremely experienced and informed in this topic area and, I would argue, the best person to be making these suggestions to guide the direction of behind-the-scenes pages towards correct practice. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing "U.S.-centric" here because in every region there clearly is a semantic distinction between a network and a channel, and OP's proposal abolishes only (TV network), which is the exact opposite of the correct handling. Channels (i.e. virtual numbers on a pay TV service) are not what we write our articles about; they are written about the business entity - the network that produces/arranges that content into a distributable stream of content - and it follows that we should be naming our articles likewise. The other use for "channel" (meaning assigned frequencies for a broadcast station) is similar, in that we write articles about the business entity - the broadcast station in those cases - and we already have good naming conventions for those. Your other point about NATURALDAB is moot as the current version encourages that already. Is there some set of articles you think is named incorrectly under the long-term version of NCBC? Also, if you believe that the current NCBC is US-centric, then surely we must WP:RETAIN the current guideline handling in at least that region, right? -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the disambiguation section that favors WP:CONCISE over WP:CONSISTENT. The disambiguation, in part, is in place so editors can find something they are looking for fast and that without even knowing if it exists, they know what it should be called. Disney Junior (Canadian TV channel) is similar to all other items (specifically in this case, television) which have the country-adjective and the type, while Disney Junior (Canadia) is neither the adjective nor the type. I can't comment on the rest as I'm not really sure what else changed. It would have been easier for me to comment on a case by case bases. That said, I'm sure Sammi did a great job as they've done with the recent infobox work. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nothing in the proposal seems particularly objectionable to me. The disambiguators seem reasonable (and I'm sure the old ones will still be redirects), the distinctions between networks, channels, and stations are much more clear, the name change rules finally make sense and align with wider the understanding of WP:NOPAGE, etc. I think this is a thorough proposal (and rather detailed), but it certainly has consensus for a lot of it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • @Sammi Brie: - your rationale for proposing this change includes the claim that it is "bringing NCBC in line with MOS". I've looked at the entirety of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and find that universally uses "network", not "channel". Is there some other MOS you are referring to? -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic, most of the changes that I note in terms of MOS are in the back half of the proposal. They come from Wikipedia:Article titles, which isn't part of MOS technically but is a policy on this wiki and has some MOS-prefixed shortcuts pointing to it. I'm also going to spend some time here responding to your ocmments to Bilorv above.
    Disambiguation concision
    Right now, we have articles in certain bunches that have wordier disambiguators than necessary (see WP:PRECISION and WP:TITLEDAB which are back-to-back sections of the same page). For instance, there are 15 disambiguated articles on TV channels named Disney Junior. All of them are named Disney Junior (X TV channel), though there is no other item titled Disney Junior that requires disambiguation (there's a stage show whose name is naturally disambiguated), so these should really have titles in the form of Disney Junior (X), e.g. "Disney Junior (Poland)" instead of "Disney Junior (Polish TV channel)". If one can reasonably expect that every parenthetically disambiguated page with the same base title, like Disney Junior or TVN, is a television channel, the first disambiguation should be by country. Of course, it's also the case that some disambiguated titles are needed to distinguish by type or by nationality and type (e.g. National Geographic (American TV channel), which has to be differentiated from the PRIMARYTOPIC magazine and other TV services with the same name).
    Disambiguation precision
    In 2019, after an article I wrote titled "KXBR (defunct)" came to DYK, I was advised that the disambiguator did not meet PRECISION. However, we had some 100 articles in radio and TV stations with that title. That led to a series of RMs to move all of those pages, as well as an essay at User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming that establishes the priority order for disambiguating call sign-titled broadcast stations (which was used in the final titles of the pages moved by RM and in several new page creations since). The latter is incorporated into the rewrite.
    The "(streaming service)" disambiguator also is probably more precise than "(service)" on some of the pages using it, like Stan (service) and Crackle (service). "Streaming service" is enough of a term of art that it is a more appropriate disambiguator.
    MOS:TV?
    I suspect MOS:TV was written with an eye to the current NCBC, which does prescribe "network" in this form.
    Incorrectly named pages?
    In 2018, Category:Television channel articles with incorrect naming style was created. It contains titles that are either disambiguated concisely (Channel 1 (Syria)) or use "channel" (Kanal 5 (Danish TV channel)). There's also Score (television), a part-time channel that probably should be disambiguated as one (an RM for another time). Most of these pages would not be incorrectly named, except for some Disney Junior-type cases, if the reformed NCBC were enacted.
    Abolishing "TV network"?
    That's not what this proposal does. There are, of course, entities that are best described as TV networks: in addition to the given examples, I offer NET (Indonesian TV network), TV5 (Philippine TV network), Charge! (TV network), etc. Their titles won't change. These entities meet the definition in the box:
    • Distributes programming to a network of stations, either owned-and-operated by the network or affiliated and owned by a third party.
    • May have windows in its program lineup for regional programming.
    • Historically owned or owns a transmitter network with national coverage.
The titles that will change are those related to pay cable services in the US. Audience (TV network), Bravo (American TV network), TLC (TV network). These services don't meet any of those bullet points which, in my view, are fundamentally distinguishing from the other examples above.
I hope this reply provides enough detail to address your concerns. I understand why there is pushback in terms of US titling, but I feel like your characterization of the term "channel" as referring only to channel numbers is incorrect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"These services don't meet any of those bullet points" - then your bullet points clearly need more work, as do your examples, because several people participating in this discussion are under the impression that you are wanting to abolish (TV network). I maintain that your examples relating to pay cable services are, more often than not, more correctly identified as "networks". Only in rare cases is "channel" appropriate, and those cases are already covered in the long-term NCBC version. Any problems you see related to consistency are better resolved via BOLD moves or RMs. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor revision - Mexico

[edit]

Wanted to float for people that do watch this page a minor revision specific to some Mexican stations.

In Mexico, virtually all new call signs for broadcast stations assigned in recent years are templated in series by station type and sequentially-ish assigned letters: XECPAE-AM, XHCSAG-FM, XHCPAG-TDT, XHSCIX-FM, XHSIBT-FM, etc. (The middle two letters are the concession type: Concesión Pública, Concesión Social, Concesión Pública, Social Comunitario, Social Indígena.) Mexico just awarded 87 FMs that go, predictably, from XHCCAA-FM to XHCCDI-FM (Concesión Comercial).

I've been thinking of a tweak for Mexico:

If the station's call sign is part of a templated series—that is, it is assigned based on the type of concession (e.g. XHCCDI-FM, XHCPAG-TDT, XHSCIX-FM)—or was replaced with a templated-series call sign as a result of the award of a new concession to replace an expiring one, the station article should be titled at the common name.

There are not that many articles that would be affected, but I think that these call signs push Mexico toward some of the South American countries in how these should be handled. For instance, there is an XECSAG-AM, an XHCSAG-FM, an XHSCAG-FM, an XHCPAG-FM (which mercifully changed its call sign, quite the rarity), and an XHCPAG-TDT. With the radio auction, stations in the same city have call signs that are sequentially near: XHCCCB-FM and XHCCCC-FM are both to be located in Culiacán.

I've curtailed writing new Mexican radio station articles largely over GNG concerns (sourcing is an issue south of the border, and ideally I'd like to get good state lists set up as redirect targets), but these are the articles that would be retitled. In the SC series, there are four pages that are examples of old stations getting new call signs on new concession awards (plus one in the CP series) something that has been ongoing because Mexican broadcasting law has required most stations to file 2.5 years in advance for renewal (and many, including some federally owned stations, are missing the boat). Some of the AMs are oddballs.

  • CP series (public concessions)
  • CS series (social concessions)
  • PB series (old series from PABFs, no longer issued). XHPBCQ-FM is an IFT-4 call sign.
  • PE series (permits, social or public concessions filed on pre-2014 applications and awarded between 2017 and 2019). XHPEDJ-FM and XHPENS-FM have IFT-4 call signs, not PE-series permit call signs.
  • SC series (social community)
  • SI series (social indigenous)

An exception is XHCPDE-TDT, which with fresh eyes might even be a merge candidate again.

Would like some feedback. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(broadcasting)&oldid=1233975038"